MATTER OF WASHINGTON SQUARE INST. FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY & MENTAL HEALTH v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WASHINGTON SQUARE INST. FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY & MENTAL HEALTH v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.

490 N.E.2d 845, 67 N.Y.2d 699, 499 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16632

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the alleged discriminatory act occurred prior to the effective date of the 1979 amendment to Executive Law § 292 (21), it was only necessary to demonstrate that complainant’s physical or medical condition in some way interfered with her performance in the training program in order to justify her dismissal. (See, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 531-532; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 49 NY2d 234, 237.) Here, it cannot be said that the Division’s determination, that complainant was unable sufficiently to participate in the program, was arbitrary and capricious. (See, State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276, 284.)

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as the alleged discriminatory act occurred prior to the effective date of the 1979 amendment to Executive Law § 292 (21), it was only necessary to demonstrate that complainant’s physical or medical condition in some way interfered with her performance in the training program in order to justify her dismissal. (See, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 531-532; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 49 NY2d 234, 237.) Here, it cannot be said that the Division’s determination, that complainant was unable sufficiently to participate in the program, was arbitrary and capricious. (See, State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276, 284.)

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

MATTER OF WASHINGTON SQUARE INST. FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY & MENTAL HEALTH v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 490 N.E.2d 845, 67 N.Y.2d 699, 499 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 16632 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

490 N.E.2d 845 (MATTER OF WASHINGTON SQUARE INST. FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY & MENTAL HEALTH v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related